I am a Christian and a scientist and I can’t
help wondering why Christians with your belief system of a literal 6 day
interpretation of creation

It would have been nice if you had followed our Feedback
rules and checked our website first. We have clearly explained why we
believe that creation was in six normal-length days and why long ages
contradict the Bible in Genesis Q&A.

God inspired the writing of Scripture to instruct us, so
it was in understandable language that the original reader would have
understood. Therefore the goal of the interpreter is to find out what
the author intended to convey. Therefore historical narrative,
such as Genesis, should be interpreted as historical narrative; poetry
(such as Psalms) should be interpreted as poetry, etc. See “Why Do You Take the Bible Literally?”

Interpreting Genesis as straightforward history is the same
interpretation that Jesus had:

Mark 10:6, ‘But at the beginning
of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Jesus never said that God made man at the end of creation
as big bang teaches. In your view, is God right or the assumptions man
used to arrive at the interpretation called ‘big bang’ right?

. . . can’t see that the Big Bang and
Evolution are a much much more glorious means by which God created the
universe, than 6 mere 24 hour days.

Glorious? It would be a god that I would never serve. I
serve a loving God, not a god that says suffering and pain and death are
‘very good’. Please see “The “god” of an Old Earth.”

My God created a perfect creation in 6 literal days and
death is an intruder due to sin. In fact, death is an enemy and
will be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26). If you believe in the big bang and evolution you
believe in hundreds of millions of years of violent death, suffering and
struggle for survival before there were any people. So death pre-dated
Adam and Eve, if you believe such people actually existed. So God created
a world of natural evil and man’s sin had nothing to do with the
entry of such into God’s very good creation. That makes God evil.

No, the Bible attributes death to sin and sin to Adam (Romans 5:12).

The Big Bang was "Let there be Light!!"
in its most incredibly awesome and unfathomable form.

But the earth was there before the light was created. Big Bang
teaches the opposite. Which is right—God or men’s interpretive assumptions
about the past? Also, leading big bang cosmologists do not agree with you, but
regard it as a classic atheistic theory. E.g. Alan Guth, the inventor of the
inflationary hypothesis, claimed that the big bang was ‘the ultimate free
lunch’—see also “The Universe is Nothingness!”
The big bang is also derived from an anti-biblical assumption called
the Cosmological Principle, that there is no center or preferred direction in
the universe. This was covered in a Feedback response earlier this year.

This is as God truly is

God is revealed correctly in the Bible and not in the theories
invented by fallible people. Why do you trust what men tell you over what
God says? Do you raise these men’s words to be equal to God’s
word? After all, Proverbs 29:25 says, ‘The
fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the Lord will be exalted.’
God’s word is equated with God Himself in John 6:63. If these men’s words are equal to God’s word
by your standard, then you are raising them up to be equal with God.

—you are miniaturizing God—your God
is too small and weak.

I fail to see your connection here. My God can create an
entire universe with diverse kinds of life in 6 days and yours …
can’t. How is my God weak? My God is also the measure of goodness,
holiness, perfection, the god of the big bang is evil, as explained above.

In fact, my God, the triune God of the Bible, even gives
a purpose as to why He created in 6 days. It is the basis for our working
week in Exodus 20:8–11.

My God, revealed in real scientific data

My God is revealed in the Bible just as He said over and
over again.

There is a major difference between operational/experimental science and historical science.

Now let me explain something that I fear you missed. As
a scientist, I thought you would’ve been aware of this. There is
a major difference between operational/experimental science and historical
science. Let me explain in more detail. Operational science is the highly
reliable repeatable science that has a tremendous reputation. This is
the type of science that put men on the moon, builds computers and automobiles,
genetic mapping, etc. Most of these fields of science are well respected.
As Christians, we fully believe in operational science. In fact, most
of these fields of science were developed by Christians. Please see Creation scientists of the past.

The other type of science is called historical science.
It isn’t repeatable because it deals with events in the past. Evolution,
radiometric dating, etc. deal with reconstructing the past. So there requires
quite a few assumptions to fill in the gaps.

Many times, these assumptions change and/or are shown wrong
and the whole concept of what was believed changes. This happens frequently
in historical science. This type of science is not very reliable and changes
quite often. Sometimes, I wonder why it is even called ‘science’
with such a bad reputation and non-repeatability. It makes people lose
hope in good operational science just because it uses the name science.

But in the same respect, some people get confused and think
the deserved reputation of operational science can be applied to historical
science. This is a fallacy of transfer. Please take a look at the following
pictures:

Operational/experimental science

Historical science

This helps visualize the differences. In historical science,
there is quite a bit of imagination. In historical science what is said
to be ‘correct and true’ today will probably be wrong tomorrow.
In operational science, what is ‘correct and true’ today will
likely be ‘correct and true’ tomorrow. Here is an example
of flawed thinking and failure in historical science regarding an isochron
dating method:

Historical science literally changes its view everyday
on some topics.

… is truly omnipotent and omniscient!

Now, if God was truly omnipotent and omnipresent, then
why couldn’t He get it right in Genesis? It would have been easy
for God to tell us the big bang was true and if evolution was true.
However, it is written otherwise. Why the deception?

Do you really believe that at some point in
human history, we coexited with extinct forms such as dinosaurs?

Jesus did; Moses did (as shown above). Therefore, I do.

You’ve reduced the interpretation of
Genesis to a description of Fred Flintstone living in Bedrock with his
pet dinosaur, Dino!

One of the more historically accurate cartoons! ;)

It is written in Genesis 1:24-28:

24 And God said, "Let
the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock,
creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according
to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals
according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and
all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in
our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds
of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish
of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that
moves on the ground."

The Bible is clear that this was the same day. Deuteronomy 27:8 says the law is written clearly and Genesis is part of the
law. Why are you trying to add another religion to the Word of God?
The religion of evolution is an attack on the Word of God. A Christian
is required to demolish arguments that stand against the knowledge of
God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Please see:

Strangely, you are the one adding men’s interpretations
of science as being equal to God and rejecting God’s plain words.
So actually, you are raising men to be equal with God.

Think Big!

I would say, ‘think biblically’! Regardless
of your and my thoughts, we can not compare to the wisdom of God—return
to the Word of God beginning with Genesis. It is the truth and (true)
science fits with it very nicely.

That is physical and biological Evolution which
God set in motion at the beginning of time and continues with the origin
of new species.

Where is this in the Bible? Is this another instant where
you are elevating man’s word to equality with, and even superiority
over, God’s word? The only passage I can find says that it is
an evil practice:

Romans 1:21-25:21For although they
knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,
but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like
mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of
their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies
with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for
a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who
is forever praised. Amen.

Evolutionists worship created images as the truth (recall
all the evolutionary pictures of transitions that are made to look like
mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles) and reject God’s
word (the truth of God in Genesis) for this lie. This passage also says
that these people think they are wise but they are futile in their thinking
and hearts are foolish.

I would greatly appreciate an answer to this.
It concerns me deeply, because I think you leave Christians wide open
to ridicule and drive potential believers away.

Sincerely,S.B., USA

In our experience, it is the opposite. It is those who
compromise who drive potential believers away. After all, compromisers
are, in effect, saying that people should trust uniformitarian ‘science’
rather than the Bible about the history of Earth and life upon it. So
why shouldn’t the potential believer be consistent and trust ‘scientists’
who claim that dead men can’t rise; virgins can’t conceive;
and that adultery, homosexuality and even rape are just the results
of our evolutionary ancestry? We have hundreds of letters on file about
how people were led astray by compromise but restored or brought to
faith by AiG’s firm stand on Biblical authority, e.g.

John 3:12:‘“I have spoken to you of earthly
things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak
of heavenly things?’”

How can someone trust Jesus (or the Bible) about something
heavenly like morality or salvation, if He (and the Bible) are wrong
about something earthly, like its origin and age? I find it strange
that you would accept Jesus in the first place, if you were an evolutionist
before you came to faith in Christ. I mean, in a God-used-evolution
framework, where death is ‘good’ and came from God, why
would someone accept Jesus to save them from death? It is quite a contradiction.
Please take some time to read some of the problems with theistic evolution.